On 4/13/12 2:36 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
To clarify my stance on this somewhat - I believe it just shows 2 things: a) Sealed conatiners with rvalue returns are rapidly becoming extinct beasts with this new ref-binds-rvalues rule. It arguably might be viewed as an antipattern like declaring C++ operator[] returning non-ref where you obviously didn't meant it. b) Apparently the whole trend of "I don't care if this an rvalue or lvalue" comes to a stop as it turns out that you do care in a lot of cases.
Agreed to both. I think the no-escape rule for ref is great, but we need to work some kinks out off it. The rvalue->lvalue needs a fair amount of work.
Andrei _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
